ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2023
A Physician's Guide to the Use of Gene Expression Profile Ancillary Diagnostic Testing for Cutaneous Melanocytic Neoplasms.
Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Appropriate Statistical Methods to Assess Cross-study Diagnostic 23-Gene Expression Profile Test Performance for Cutaneous Melanocytic Neoplasms.The American Journal of dermatopathology · 2024Article
- Diagnosing Cutaneous Melanocytic Tumors in the Molecular Era: Updates and Review of Literature.Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Some melanocytic neoplasms suspicious for melanoma require additional workup to arrive at a final diagnosis. Within the last eight years, gene expression profiling (GEP) has become an important ancillary tool to aid in the diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms with uncertain malignant potential. As the usage of two commercially available tests (23-GEP and 35-GEP) evolves, it is important to answer key questions about optimal utilization and their impact on patient care. Methods: Recent and relevant articles answering the following questions were included in the review. First, how do dermatopathologists synthesize the available literature, the latest guidelines, and their clinical experience to determine which cases would be most likely to benefit from GEP testing? Second, how best can a dermatologist convey to their dermatopathologist that the use of GEP in the diagnostic process could provide a more clearly defined result and thereby help empower the dermatologist to provide higher-quality patient care when making specific patient management decisions for otherwise pathologically ambiguous lesions? Results: When interpreted in the context of the clinical, pathologic, and laboratory information, GEP results can facilitate the rendering of timely, accurate, and definitive diagnoses for melanocytic lesions with otherwise uncertain malignant potential to inform personalized treatment and management plans. Limitations: This was a narrative review focused on clinical use of GEP compared to other ancillary diagnostic tests performed postbiopsy. Conclusion: Open communication between dermatopathologists and dermatologists, especially regarding GEP testing, can be a vital component to achieve appropriate clinicopathologic correlation for otherwise ambiguous melanocytic lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37077930PMC10110288W4366602311What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.